at-will principle in Hawaii

2002Yet, "[d]espite our reaffirmation of the at-will principle, we recognize that courts have decided that the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees ‘can be contractually modified, and thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.' " Id. at 383 , 14 P.3d at 1064 (citing Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 601 , 724 P.2d 110, 115-16 (1986)). .

2002Yet, "[d]espite our reaffirmation of the at-will principle, we recognize that courts have decided that the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees `can be contractually modified, and thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.'" Id. at 383 , 14 P.3d at 1064 (citing Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 601 , 724 P.2d 110, 115-16 (1986)). [19] See Shoppe , 94 Hawai`i at 385, 14 P.3d at 1066 (noting the "clear and unambiguous language" of the employee handbook); Courtney v. Ca

2002Yet, "[d]espite our reaffirmation of the at-will principle, we recognize that courts have decided that the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees `can be contractually modified, and thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.'" Id. at 383 , 14 P.3d at 1064 (citing Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 601 , 724 P.2d 110, 115-16 (1986)). [19] See Shoppe , 94 Hawai`i at 385, 14 P.3d at 1066 (noting the "clear and unambiguous language" of the employee handbook); Courtney v. Ca

2002Yet, "[d]espite our reaffirmation of the at-will principle, we recognize that courts have decided that the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees `can be contractually modified, and thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.'" Id. at 383 , 14 P.3d at 1064 (citing Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 601 , 724 P.2d 110, 115-16 (1986)). [19] See Shoppe , 94 Hawai`i at 385, 14 P.3d at 1066 (noting the "clear and unambiguous language" of the employee handbook); Courtney v. Ca

2008Specifically, Kamaka argues: *111 The at-will doctrine is inapplicable because[:] (1) once Goodsill began an investigation, the authorities hold Goodsill to a duty to use reasonable care in conducting its investigation; (2) Goodsill had a policy of probation; and (3) this case falls within the recognized public policy exception relating to violations of professional ethical rules [ (citing, in a footnote, to Smith v. Chaney Brooks Realty, Inc., 10 Haw.App. 250, 256-58 , 865 P.2d 170, 173-74 (1994)) ].

2008Specifically, Kamaka argues: *111 The at-will doctrine is inapplicable because[:] (1) once Goodsill began an investigation, the authorities hold Goodsill to a duty to use reasonable care in conducting its investigation; (2) Goodsill had a policy of probation; and (3) this case falls within the recognized public policy exception relating to violations of professional ethical rules [ (citing, in a footnote, to Smith v. Chaney Brooks Realty, Inc., 10 Haw.App. 250, 256-58 , 865 P.2d 170, 173-74 (1994)) ].

2002Ctr., 296 N.J.Super. 298 , 686 A.2d 1212, 1223 (1997) (stating that a clear and straightforward disclaimer, prominently and conspicuously displayed, may overcome the implication that an employment manual constitutes an enforceable employment contract); Jose v. Norwest Bank, 599 N.W.2d 293, 297 (N.D.1999) (noting that an explicit and conspicuous disclaimer demonstrates the employer's intent that the manual be merely a guide for the employee); Thompson v. St.

2002Ctr., 296 N.J.Super. 298 , 686 A.2d 1212, 1223 (1997) (stating that a clear and straightforward disclaimer, prominently and conspicuously displayed, may overcome the implication that an employment manual constitutes an enforceable employment contract); Jose v. Norwest Bank, 599 N.W.2d 293, 297 (N.D.1999) (noting that an explicit and conspicuous disclaimer demonstrates the employer's intent that the manual be merely a guide for the employee); Thompson v. St.

2002See Shoppe, 94 Hawai'i at 385 , 14 P.3d at 1066 (noting the "clear and unambiguous language” of the employee handbook); Courtney v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 899 F.2d 845 (9th Cir.1990), aff’g 3 BNA IER CASES 619 (D.Haw.1988) (noting explicit disclaimer); Eng v. Longs Drugs, Inc., 5 BNA IER CASES 342 (D.Haw.1990) (noting the express disclaimer on the inside of the back cover); see also Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 720 (requiring clear language and appropriate dissemination); Phipps, 558 N.W.2d at 204 (requiring disclaimer to be clear in its terms and unambiguous in its coverage); Falco

2002Yet, "[d]espite our reaffirmation of the at-will principle, we recognize that courts have decided that the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees `can be contractually modified, and thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.'" Id. at 383 , 14 P.3d at 1064 (citing Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 601 , 724 P.2d 110, 115-16 (1986)). [19] See Shoppe , 94 Hawai`i at 385, 14 P.3d at 1066 (noting the "clear and unambiguous language" of the employee handbook); Courtney v. Ca

2002Ctr., 296 N.J.Super. 298 , 686 A.2d 1212, 1223 (1997) (stating that a clear and straightforward disclaimer, prominently and conspicuously displayed, may overcome the implication that an employment manual constitutes an enforceable employment contract); Jose v. Norwest Bank, 599 N.W.2d 293, 297 (N.D.1999) (noting that an explicit and conspicuous disclaimer demonstrates the employer's intent that the manual be merely a guide for the employee); Thompson v. St.

2002See Shoppe, 94 Hawai'i at 385 , 14 P.3d at 1066 (noting the "clear and unambiguous language” of the employee handbook); Courtney v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 899 F.2d 845 (9th Cir.1990), aff’g 3 BNA IER CASES 619 (D.Haw.1988) (noting explicit disclaimer); Eng v. Longs Drugs, Inc., 5 BNA IER CASES 342 (D.Haw.1990) (noting the express disclaimer on the inside of the back cover); see also Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 720 (requiring clear language and appropriate dissemination); Phipps, 558 N.W.2d at 204 (requiring disclaimer to be clear in its terms and unambiguous in its coverage); Falco

2002Yet, "[d]espite our reaffirmation of the at-will principle, we recognize that courts have decided that the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees `can be contractually modified, and thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.'" Id. at 383 , 14 P.3d at 1064 (citing Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 601 , 724 P.2d 110, 115-16 (1986)). [19] See Shoppe , 94 Hawai`i at 385, 14 P.3d at 1066 (noting the "clear and unambiguous language" of the employee handbook); Courtney v. Ca

2002Yet, "[d]espite our reaffirmation of the at-will principle, we recognize that courts have decided that the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees `can be contractually modified, and thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.'" Id. at 383 , 14 P.3d at 1064 (citing Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 601 , 724 P.2d 110, 115-16 (1986)). [19] See Shoppe , 94 Hawai`i at 385, 14 P.3d at 1066 (noting the "clear and unambiguous language" of the employee handbook); Courtney v. Ca

2002Yet, "[d]espite our reaffirmation of the at-will principle, we recognize that courts have decided that the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees `can be contractually modified, and thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.'" Id. at 383 , 14 P.3d at 1064 (citing Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 601 , 724 P.2d 110, 115-16 (1986)). [19] See Shoppe , 94 Hawai`i at 385, 14 P.3d at 1066 (noting the "clear and unambiguous language" of the employee handbook); Courtney v. Ca

2000Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219 , 685 P.2d 1081, 1087 (1984) (citations omitted)).

2000Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219 , 685 P.2d 1081, 1087 (1984) (citations omitted)).

1982Thus Crawford is for our purposes of historical interest only, although it accurately represents the state of our law on the question expressly decided there. 5 Payne v. Western & A.R.R., 81 Tenn. 507, 519-20 (1884), overruled on other grounds; Hutton v. Watters, 132 Tenn. 527 , 179 S.W. 134 (1915). 6 Illustrative of federal regulation of wrongful dismissal is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1976). 7 The at-will doctrine has invoked much scholarly examination.